Leon Panetta needs to rethink what he is doing to put it mildly.

[Are_grits_groceries]

Leon Panetta was Secretary of Defense as late as 2013. The people he put in place at the DOD and the CIA are probably still in place. Policies that he supported are also probably being enacted and his influence can still be felt in those institutions.

For him to come out NOW and criticize President Obama is not right nor helpful. If he had a principled disagreement with the President, he should have spoken up then. If he did and it was not heeded, his actions now smack of someone who wants to push his agenda in public now. The fact that another path was taken than he deems correct now indicates other voices were also heard.

If he did support policies that were and are being enacted then this is a very late conversion to a different view. He is and has been very close to the Clintons. Whether they are or not, his actions smack of a political move to bolster a possible Hillary candidacy by creating more room from President Obama's actions in order to help her continue to separate herself from his policies.

In addition, he was and he may still be privy to top secret information. He may not be giving specifics, but his statements have to be informed by some of what he has heard. His interpretation of it is colored by his beliefs.

Panetta is not the end all and be all of defense policy, security policy, or any other policy. He is being by the media treated as the one true source of the truth. This is dangerous and does not present any other opinions or courses of action.

The situation in the Middle East is a Gordian hot mess. Anything we do will have unforeseen consequences that may backfire on us. Trying to get rid of ISIS is fraught with danger in many ways. This factor does not obviate the need to take some action but those who act as if there is an easy solution are fooling themselves and others.

Panetta and others are in a different position than most. They have a special position by virtue of the offices they held. They need to think carefully about the ramifications of their statements. Their pronouncements made as fact are misleading and do not present a balanced view.

[malaise]

1. But but but

His employer works for Hillary Clinton
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I loathe people like Panetta.

[malaise]

3. Same here

Why are they doing this crap before the mid-terms?

[Enthusiast]

8. Just a tad suspicious.

[TBF]

13. Gee I wonder.

Hillary to save the day!

[karynnj]

24. I wouldn't be surprised and how the story could work is obvious

and, in fact, possibly already started. For instance, Grimes has gotten backing from both Clintons - as she distances from Obama. Then there is Pryor in Arkansas. Hillary has committed to working for 2014 -- and that is absolutely for the good - for both herself and Democrats. The same with Clinton. I suspect that we CAN count on the Clintons whenever their own interests align with ours. There is no question that they can be effective.

The bad side is that if Obama (and the rest of the P5) are able to get an acceptable result with Iran, will the Clintons play politics with it -- engaging the ever ready Netanyahu in the process? Also, if the changes in Israel/Palestine start to create pressure in Israel to actually seriously work for a 2 state solution, will the Clintons play a role in holding out that they would give Israel a better deal?

What we already see is that Panetta and others are really with the Republicans against what really is a remarkable shift on the part of Obama on Iraq/Syria/etc. The problem is a huge knot - and it is not clear that it can be unknotted.

In terms of US opinion, Obama is facing derision and attacks from BOTH the left - which would be happier if the US just left and conceded the area was hopeless and we had no chance of being helpful AND the Republicans, the neo-cons and the whole Clinton wing of the Democratic party - who want a full scale attack on Assad. ( Read this completely useless WP editorial from Sunday - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-is-complicit-as-it-blames-turkey-for-the-catastrophe-in-kobane/2014/10/10/b0189c64-508c-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html )

I suspect that with Panetta and the Clintons are willing to continue the neo con policies that the NYT and WP will support, unlike Obama and Kerry, who are trying to change AWAY from the neo con policies. The US President has a huge amount of power in setting the policy, but it is much harder when the strongest media voices, the opposite party AND a strong wing of his own party are against him.

[Javaman]

18. because he wants to be part of when the "old gang" is back together again. nt

[riversedge]

5. +1

[Fumesucker]

4. I'd be shocked if Panetta hasn't thought through the ramifications of what he's saying

He knows exactly what he's doing and has an excellent idea of what the fallout will be.

This is all about HMS Inevitable and 2016.

[Divernan]

6. Could HRC be dangling the possibility of a cabinet appointment before him?

Which would be ill-advised since he will be 78 in 2016. And don't anyone scream age discrimination at me - I'm in my 70's myself and retired from government lawyering. The level of physical stamina it takes to serve on a presidential cabinet is beyond the realistic scope of someone in their late 70's.

Puts me in mind of older male trial judges who had to call a recess every hour because of their prostate problems. Oh well, I guess he could wear Depends to the cabinet meetings.

[MADem]

16. He's already been there and done that. Doesn't make sense.

SECDEF is Number Two in the Cabinet, and for all intents and purposes, has the same clout as State. Before that, he was CIA Director. He had both jobs under OBAMA.

Disclosure: I met the guy about 20+ years ago and I thought his mind was sharper than a steel trap. He really could dissect an issue six ways to Sunday. Maybe he's raging against the dying of the light, and still wants to remain relevant.


My questions would be as follows--First, is there something (that hasn't gone public) going on in CIA that has him exorcised? He's still getting briefings, something might have his drawers in a knot. Second, is he writing a book? One way to stir up interest to persuade people to part with twenty five bucks for a hard cover tome is to get "The News" to cover a created policy riff so that they, in effect, pay for the advertisement of a book.

[Fumesucker]

21. This might answer your question

[MADem]

29. Well, whoop, there it is!!! nt

[karynnj]

25. Could it be that he believes in some version of the neocon ideas?

In some way, the root idea - that the US could change the culture and politics of an entire region to be more like us - is probably the same as the US view of itself as exceptional and as a problem solver, extraordinaire.

He might have big problems with the Obama plan that ultimately seems to rest on the countries in the area rooting out extremism and INDEPENDENTLY learning that living in peace with each other is to their benefit. (The Republican message - somewhat incoherently delivered by your former Senator on Saturday - spoke of what the world looks like without US leadership. This relies on a US axiom that we CAN run the world, controlling events everywhere - ignoring that even their hero Reagan failed to do so.)

[MADem]

27. I can't speak for him at all, certainly not based on an encounter going back two-plus decades.

I can give you my impression, and I didn't see him as a neocon (then, anyway). In fact, the context of my interaction with him had to do with the impending military drawdown of the nineties, and this was several years before it actually went into full force--it was in the "sketching out" phase, as it were. He didn't seem to be railing against it; he approached it as more of a cost-benefit issue, smart cuts, targeted and intelligent decision - making WRT reductions, and he was focused on efficiencies.

What "Republican message" do you mean? My last former Republican Senator was that asshole Scott Brown...before that, it was Ed Brooke and I don't think he's talking much! If you're talking about Nekkid Scottie, I can't even watch his awful over-the-border hilarious-in-their-awfulness commercials without busting a gut! I hear his whining voice and I just tune out. To call that guy an empty suit is to give a bad name to empty suits...!

[karynnj]

30. Yep - it was the centerfold that the Republicans entrusted their message to on Saturday

His voice is incredibly annoying and whining. I have seen very few of his ads - and then only by clicking here. I was stunned that he had one with many pictures of his service - implying that it gave him military competency.

Brown was all over the map and pushing that Obama has failed on foreign policy and keeping us safe.

[MADem]

31. His latest ad is a spelling bee, by those Crossroads jerks.

It has a little kid spelling Shaheen as O-B-A-M-A. It's such a shitty ad that if you aren't paying attention you think it's a pro-Shaheen ad. The photo of Shaheen at the end is positively lovely--she's got a sweet smile and it's in full color, not the usual washed out pic of the candidate frowning.

Makes me wonder if the person putting the thing together was a secret Shaheen fan!!

[JaneQPublic]

17. or VP... Clinton/Panetta 2015 is what he's hoping for. n/t

[former9thward]

20. That would never happen.

Clinton will be old in 2016 and Panetta would be even older. She will pick a significantly younger man for VP.

[MADem]

28. I think he's too old. Really.

He's got a big old walnut farm to run, too.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. I'm sure he has.

That's why I said he needs to rethink it. It's one thing to push a policy to help an election in the future. It's another to make statements that can directly affect our Middle East policy now.

[ReRe]

15. Well, he can't rethink it now....

... the cat's out of the bag. I find his speaking out a bit Cheneyesque and at least a slap in the face and totally disrespectful of the President in whose cabinet he served in two positions.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. So the President hired a Clinton Pod Person

Who's now acting like a Clinton Pod Person.

Shocking!

[Supersedeas]

19. and to think that there are still others roaming the halls

[eomer]

10. Sadly, the reality is that you need to rethink your understanding of how things work.

You apparently think someone like Panetta has the same interests that the people of the US and of the world would have. If you rethink the situation based on the interests of the MIC being perpetual war and people like Panetta being cogs in that machine then a better explanation will be the result.

In other words, when you say his actions are "not helpful", of course they are. He's just not working toward the goals you have in mind.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. Oh please.

I know how things work. That doesn't mean they are right or not distasteful.
I am not surprised in the least that Panetta did this. It makes me think less of him than I did which was little. I know he could care less.

[eomer]

12. OK,thanks for clarifying.

Just mistook your meaning apparently.

[davidpdx]

14. Panetta needs to go leap in a garbage dumpster

and stay there.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Pretty much. What's really sad is that Obama treated him well--it's not like Obama

ran him out of the administration or treated him like shit, he just disagreed with some of the advice he was given, which is his right as President.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Panetta had no influence on defense policy. He was a semi-retired figurehead.

His deputies and undersecretaries ran everything (Ash Carter and Michelle Fluornoy), this is well-known--whatever he spouted came from them.

[The Magistrate]

32. True, Sir

A mere time-server.

[spanone]

26. the almighty dollar